The experiment proves that under some set of conditions covered by the experiment a photon does not move faster than c. You can't automatically generalize that and claim that under no conditions does a photon exceed c.
It depends on how you tailor it. The data indicates that some students may do better with more or less direction, for example. But many popular tailoring axes, like visual learning, auditory learning, reading vs. lecturing, etc. have no effect on how quickly or thoroughly students learn. An individual person may be stronger in spatial reasoning and weaker in language, but it is overall general intelligence that correlates to learning, and it is independent of style.
First let me get out the way that I am opposed to the police doing this sort of thing. The legality of doing this is obviously going to be challenged. I suspect that the "mosaic theory" is going to come into play. In that theory, aggregated data can be more than the sum of its parts. For instance if a person aggregates all of the publicly available information on internet cables crisscrossing the US into a map, the US government could, under the mosaic theory, hold that while each part of the data compiled is and ought to be publicly available, the compilation of that information constitutes a security risk and can be considered sensitive. I think it's going to be interesting to see if that same theory can cause the compilation of non-private publicly-available data, the license plate at location at time data, into a database to be considered unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Tight control is not at all the same thing as competent. The controllers could be meddlesome idiots who screw everything up with an iron fist. Or the people being controlled could themselves be entirely incapable of following through. I have no reason to believe that is or isn't the case, but neither follows from tight control even assuming that communism does imply tight control (which I'm willing to grant it probably does tend to do).
Members of different but related species can mate and produce offspring, but they cannot produce produce both male and female offspring that are fertile. For a sexually reproducing organism, that's the definition of species. The article talks about modern humans, which clearly have fertile males and females, having neanderthal genes coming from neanderthal ancestors. That implies that neanderthals and sapiens interbred and produced fertile offspring, which implies they are the same species.
In your polar bear example, if polar bears and some species of brown bears can interbreed and produce fertile males and fertile females, that too would imply they are the same species irrespective of "behavior and environment."
Human refers to the members of the genus homo. Homo neanderthalensis are in that genus and therefore definitely human. It doesn't come up very often because there is only one extant human species, homo sapiens. There is debate as to whether neanderthals are properly their own species of human, homo neanderthalensis, or actually just a different subspecies, homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs homo sapeins sapiens. Without reading TFA, assuming that the summary is precise in saying that "conclude that this haplotype is present because of mating between our ancestors and Neanderthals," then if the research is correct that would pretty much decide the issue in favor of the single-species two-subspecies hypothesis.
Steam doesn't allow a secondary market; that is true. But they make up for it by selling games much, much, cheaper than other retailers (I don't have figures, but I assume that their deeply discounted games greatly outsell the others). The ability to resell a game has a value to me. If you discount the new game by an amount greater than the amount of the resale value, I will happily prefer buying your cheaper, but non-resealable version. Go low enough and nobody cares about buying used either since nobody buys a used game because they prefer used to new; they buy used because it's cheaper. The losers are the stores that specialize in reselling used games since they can no longer profit off of arbitrage.
That all makes sense. But take it a step further down the chain.
"I suspect we'll see the second hand games resellers lowering both their purchase and resale price for these games over time." That means that people who buy the game new will get less for their trade-ins. Not everyone trades games in, but that will yield a lower average value to the new game since some proportion of the buyers counted on defraying the purchase price with a trade-in. That will yield lower sales and/or lower prices on new games that use Uplay. Ubisoft, retail stores, buyers, and resellers will all adjust their prices to the new equilibrium over time. The end result will be a sharper divide between used and new game prices, lower prices on both generally, greater purchaser choice (since the difference between used and new games is itself larger - that doesn't mean to say that in any particular instance the choice you prefer is still available), and greater user annoyance at needing to deal with the uplay system.
Agree with all of the above. When I referred to our "little blastocyst" my wife got upset and chided me for not knowing that by three weeks we most certainly had a gastrula.
That's a valid point, accurate and pertinent to the article. But when I said "a person" I was referring to common usage rather than trade usage. Contrast the case of Kleenex where you would hear an individual in a private circumstance saying "Could you hand me a kleenex?" and pointing to a box of "Puffs Facial Tissues" against something like "I lost my wallet. Help me google it."
The term "googling" is a bit different because when used as a verb it means "searching with Google" not just "searching." A person uses a Puffs branded kleenex to wipe his nose. You can xerox a document on a machine made by Brother. But nobody googles around her house for her car keys or even googles for a website on Yahoo.*
* Ok, I have encountered someone who claimed to be googling with Yahoo, but that was a case where she didn't realize there even were different search engines and thought she was using google.
Slashdot Mirror
Those extra three seconds during my monthly reboot are really going to add up!
The experiment proves that under some set of conditions covered by the experiment a photon does not move faster than c. You can't automatically generalize that and claim that under no conditions does a photon exceed c.
It depends on how you tailor it. The data indicates that some students may do better with more or less direction, for example. But many popular tailoring axes, like visual learning, auditory learning, reading vs. lecturing, etc. have no effect on how quickly or thoroughly students learn. An individual person may be stronger in spatial reasoning and weaker in language, but it is overall general intelligence that correlates to learning, and it is independent of style.
First let me get out the way that I am opposed to the police doing this sort of thing. The legality of doing this is obviously going to be challenged. I suspect that the "mosaic theory" is going to come into play. In that theory, aggregated data can be more than the sum of its parts. For instance if a person aggregates all of the publicly available information on internet cables crisscrossing the US into a map, the US government could, under the mosaic theory, hold that while each part of the data compiled is and ought to be publicly available, the compilation of that information constitutes a security risk and can be considered sensitive. I think it's going to be interesting to see if that same theory can cause the compilation of non-private publicly-available data, the license plate at location at time data, into a database to be considered unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Tight control is not at all the same thing as competent. The controllers could be meddlesome idiots who screw everything up with an iron fist. Or the people being controlled could themselves be entirely incapable of following through. I have no reason to believe that is or isn't the case, but neither follows from tight control even assuming that communism does imply tight control (which I'm willing to grant it probably does tend to do).
He's always pandering to the Australians.
I can't fathom how deep it must be if they expect it to last even a decasaeculum.
Members of different but related species can mate and produce offspring, but they cannot produce produce both male and female offspring that are fertile. For a sexually reproducing organism, that's the definition of species. The article talks about modern humans, which clearly have fertile males and females, having neanderthal genes coming from neanderthal ancestors. That implies that neanderthals and sapiens interbred and produced fertile offspring, which implies they are the same species. In your polar bear example, if polar bears and some species of brown bears can interbreed and produce fertile males and fertile females, that too would imply they are the same species irrespective of "behavior and environment."
Human refers to the members of the genus homo. Homo neanderthalensis are in that genus and therefore definitely human. It doesn't come up very often because there is only one extant human species, homo sapiens. There is debate as to whether neanderthals are properly their own species of human, homo neanderthalensis, or actually just a different subspecies, homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs homo sapeins sapiens. Without reading TFA, assuming that the summary is precise in saying that "conclude that this haplotype is present because of mating between our ancestors and Neanderthals," then if the research is correct that would pretty much decide the issue in favor of the single-species two-subspecies hypothesis.
I liked the commercial with the nuns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmQ3f1PRnw0
Steam doesn't allow a secondary market; that is true. But they make up for it by selling games much, much, cheaper than other retailers (I don't have figures, but I assume that their deeply discounted games greatly outsell the others). The ability to resell a game has a value to me. If you discount the new game by an amount greater than the amount of the resale value, I will happily prefer buying your cheaper, but non-resealable version. Go low enough and nobody cares about buying used either since nobody buys a used game because they prefer used to new; they buy used because it's cheaper. The losers are the stores that specialize in reselling used games since they can no longer profit off of arbitrage.
That all makes sense. But take it a step further down the chain. "I suspect we'll see the second hand games resellers lowering both their purchase and resale price for these games over time." That means that people who buy the game new will get less for their trade-ins. Not everyone trades games in, but that will yield a lower average value to the new game since some proportion of the buyers counted on defraying the purchase price with a trade-in. That will yield lower sales and/or lower prices on new games that use Uplay. Ubisoft, retail stores, buyers, and resellers will all adjust their prices to the new equilibrium over time. The end result will be a sharper divide between used and new game prices, lower prices on both generally, greater purchaser choice (since the difference between used and new games is itself larger - that doesn't mean to say that in any particular instance the choice you prefer is still available), and greater user annoyance at needing to deal with the uplay system.
Having been in academia for the last decade I can assure you that is most certainly not unusual behavior for a lab assistant.
Agree with all of the above. When I referred to our "little blastocyst" my wife got upset and chided me for not knowing that by three weeks we most certainly had a gastrula.
That's a valid point, accurate and pertinent to the article. But when I said "a person" I was referring to common usage rather than trade usage. Contrast the case of Kleenex where you would hear an individual in a private circumstance saying "Could you hand me a kleenex?" and pointing to a box of "Puffs Facial Tissues" against something like "I lost my wallet. Help me google it."
The term "googling" is a bit different because when used as a verb it means "searching with Google" not just "searching." A person uses a Puffs branded kleenex to wipe his nose. You can xerox a document on a machine made by Brother. But nobody googles around her house for her car keys or even googles for a website on Yahoo.* * Ok, I have encountered someone who claimed to be googling with Yahoo, but that was a case where she didn't realize there even were different search engines and thought she was using google.